Sportolysis – The World Sports Blog

I support India not touring Pakistan but it has got nothing to do with political reasons. I am tired of the Indian players playing non- stop cricket from like forever. This break will hopefully draw me back to the game a bit.

Zaheer Khan thinks that Australia was very defensive and I think that he is right. The Aussies were a bowler short but what really cost them was the defensive mindset. I agree with Zaheer. Despite being a bowler short, they were in the game. Yet, they decided to set defensive fields to Zaheer and Harbhajan and declared late (that’s what Ponting does).

Chappelli was right. He said in one of the studio shows that ‘there are two type of declarations – one which gives the opposition a sniff and is a real declaration while the other is the closure which gives the other team no chance to win. There are captains of both kinds with Taylor and Warne (had he captained Australia) being in the declaration class while Waugh and Ponting being in the closure class.’ Lovers of Steve Waugh will jump on that but I never rated him as a high calibre captain and agree with Chappelli (though Chappelli’s hatred towards S.Waugh is quite well known). The Steve Waugh bit is a digression from the point I want to make here —

In the end you need 10 wickets to win the game. As Australia were a bowler short, they needed more time and not less time to bowl India out. Katich playing defensively and Australia not going on the attack on the fourth day itself and not declaring earlier probably hurt them a lot and cost them the match or at least a better chance in the match.

Ganguly was one of the best captains India had. I wont call him the best but one of the best is a tag honourable enough. He was a limited test batsman in the sense that he was not a great like a Tendulkar but is one of the best one day players of all time.

He was treated poorly by the selectors in the end when he was dropped from the ODI squad despite having a successful run previous to his dropping. This is the best way to go keeping pride intact, against the best team in the world, given that his selection is not a guarantee in the squad.

This comes as a complete shock. I was lucky to meet the man and spend time with him talking about cricket a few years back. Mumbai had come to play Bengal and he was the Mumbai coach. He was kind enough to spend time with me talking about the game that splendid day at Eden Gardens. He was a genuinely nice man from whatever I came to know of him. He was also regarded as some one who had one of the best minds on the game in India.

Will be deeply missed.

RIP.

Disappointed on two fronts with the Indian team selection. Firstly, our two reserve fast bowlers, Ishant Sharma and Pankaj Singh, seriously lack in experience. If one of the 3 fast bowlers get injured, we might have to play one of Sharma and Singh in a test in Australia.

Munaf Patel would have been a better option IMO. He may be like Akhtar in that he finds it difficult to play all tests in a series but if we used him properly, he could have been a good reserve option at least. Inzamam talked in an interview how he used to save Akhtar for crucial matches and not play him every time. Perhaps we need to do some thing similar with Munaf. Pankaj Singh is a tall fast bowler who has taken 5 wickets v Mumbai recently but really, do we want to blood or try some one like him on a tough tour like Australia.

If I was Chopra, I would be pissed. This guy has been making runs after runs after runs and yet, he can’t get into the Indian test team. Sehwag hasn’t done any thing of note recently to deserve a place in the test side right now. He doesn’t fill me with confidence. Given that he is Sehwag and he might deliver some of his old magic, it is okay if the selectors feel that they should select him. However, they should have then gone for a reserve opener in the form of Chopra (or Uthappa).

They should have been brave enough and dropped one of Karthik and Dhoni from the team or taken a fast bowler less. If Sehwag doesn’t work, we would have the real possibility of Karthik opening again and that doesn’t fill me with any confidence. Just don’t open with Dravid – I am hearing every one talk of the real possibility of Dravid opening (Chetan Sharma mentioned it yesterday). Even trying out Yuvraj to open (though I am not adverse to the move of Yuvraj opening) for the first time is not an ideal scenario in a tour like Australia but that is what happens when you do not choose some one like Chopra in the side.

Over all, this team might work if people are firing. The weakness with the squad, however, is that the bench options – a strength of India over the past 12 months, is not solid enough. So if the first XI or the 12th option doesn’t gel, we would have to look at carrying a player like Ishant Sharma or Singh in the XI (Forget Singh, even Ishant Sharma, while he might be a decent option for the future but really, do we want him to play in a first XI in a test in Australia) and that is inviting trouble as Sri Lanka found out by playing Fernando in the test XI.

Today’s two dismissals by Aleem Dar reiterates why it is time we use technology in cricket. Sure some one can say that Aleem Dar is a poor umpire but some one being a poor umpire shouldn’t mean that games are affected like they are. Even the best umpires make mistakes as they are only human. The problem is larger.

Cricket is a sport where dismissals are a key element. In test cricket, there are a maximum of 40 dismissals. A batsman given out when not out or vice versa can have a huge impact on the way the game shapes up. So why should we not use technology where it can help us conclusively where decisions are concerned?

Kasporwicz was not out in Ashes 2005 if we go by the rules. However, there was no way the umpire could have judged the same with the angle he had and made the best decision he could have made given how he saw things. If we can get a decision like that right within a minute (which is practical given we can see replays on the screen instantly), why should the thid umpire not talk with the umpires officiating and immediately get the decision right?

Do such decisions waste too much time? Let teams use referrals – 3 or 5 in a game. Every time you use a referral incorrectly, you have one referral less to use in the game. Simple.

Would it undermine the authority of the umpires? Not really. We would cut the pressure from the umpires this way more than any thing. At the end of the day, we should strive to get decisions right wherever we can. It is ludicrous that the whole world can see what y decision should have been and yet we have the scenarios of x batting when he is clearly out or x sitting in the pavilion when he is clearly not out.